An Inaugural For A Downsized Era

President Clinton's second inaugural address was a fitting one for an age that has been defined by the term "downsize."

To begin with, the speech was (mercifully) downsized in length from what Americans have come to expect as the Clinton standard.

It ostensibly was downsized also in the ambitions and aspirations it claimed for the federal government--although a careful reading suggests Clinton may have crafted those claims to sound more modest than they actually were.

And, it must be said, the speech was downsized in quality--certainly by comparison with such historical treasures as Lincoln's second or John F. Kennedy's sole inaugural address, but also by comparison with some of Clinton's own presidential speeches. Like Ronald Reagan, Clinton can be a great communicator, but you couldn't have told it by Monday's speech.

The line that grabbed most immediate attention was Clinton's peace overture to the Republican Congress. "The American people returned to office a president of one party and a Congress of another," he said. "Surely they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore."

Surely not. They did it so that each could check the worst impulses of the other--Clinton's activism being offset by Congress' conservatism and vice versa. That would be healthy, wholesome and moderating.

What it might also do is produce the ethical equivalent of the nuclear balance of terror, in which the egregious ethical offenses of House Speaker Newt Gingrich buy Clinton immunity from GOP attacks on his ethical shortcomings, and vice versa.

The finest moment in Clinton's speech may have been his call for social tolerance: "Our rich texture of racial, religious and political diversity will be a godsend in the 21st Century. Great rewards will come to those who can live together, learn together, work together, forge new ties that bind together."

The most worrisome may have been his characterization of the role of government: "We need . . . a government that is smaller, lives within its means and does more with less. Yet, where it can stand up for our values and interests around the world and where it can give Americans the power to make a real difference in their everyday lives, government should do more, not less." But what territory does that not embrace?

The most astonishing thing about Clinton's speech may have been all the cliches and banalities it employed--from beginning (". . . let us lift our eyes toward the challenges that await us in the new century") to end (". . . let us build our bridge . . .").

If Clinton hopes to make his historical mark by using the "bully pulpit" to inspire Americans, he'd better start to preach as if he feels the spirit.